Luke 19:12

He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom, and return. And he called ten servants of his, and gave them ten pounds, and said unto them, Trade ye herewith till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent an ambassage after him, saying, We will not that this man reign over us. And it came to pass, when he was come back again, having received the kingdom, that he commanded these servants, unto whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading. And the first came before him saying, Lord, thy pound hath made ten pounds more. And he said unto him, Well done, thou good servant; because thou wast faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath made five pounds. And he said unto him also, Be thou over five cities. And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I kept laid up in a napkin: for I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that which thou layest not down, and reapest that which thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant, Thou knowest that I am an austere man, taking up that which I laid down, and reaping that which I did not sow; then wherefore gavest thou not my money into the bank, and I at my coming should have required it with interest? And he said unto them that stood by, Take away from him the pound, and give it unto him that hath ten pounds. And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds. I say unto you, that every one that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him. But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

It would be just as reasonable to declare this parable as "resembling that of the Ten Virgins" as to declare that it resembles Matthew's parable of the talents. After all, were there not ten virgins and ten servants! This parable is unique to Luke, and encompasses a wide spectrum of teaching far beyond that found in any other parable. One portion of this parable (the detail of the ten servants and the ten pounds entrusted to them) does, in fact, recall Matthew's parable; but the lessons and analogies in view are utterly different. As Summers said, "The parable contains much allegorical material."[28] We shall not be concerned with the radical criticism which tries to find here a clumsy melding of two different parables; because the analogies which shall be noted, and the perfect, interlocking unity of the whole parable are devastating to any such notion.

ANALOGIES IN THE PARABLE

The nobleman = Jesus Christ our Lord

His going into the far country = his ascension to God in heaven

His receiving of a kingdom = reigning over the church

His citizens refusing him = secular Israel's rejection

The ambassage they sent = "We have no king but Caesar."

The ten servants = all of the servants of Christ

"Trade ye ... till I come" = the faithful work of Christians

The ten pounds = the trust God gives to every man

The one who gained ten = the faithful Christian

The one who gained five = the faithful Christian of less ability

The one who hid his pound = the wicked and unfaithful Christian

Ten cities and five cities = different kinds of employment in heaven

Taking away the pound = punishment of unfaithful servants

Slaying his enemies = judgment of Jerusalem as a type of eternal judgment

The return of the nobleman = the Second Coming of Christ

Extended absence of nobleman = the long period of time before the Second Coming

There are collateral analogies in most of the above which will be noted below, making this by far the most extensive of Jesus' parables, as far as the comprehensive nature of its teaching is concerned.

A certain nobleman ... What an appropriate comparison for Jesus, who was of the royal seed of David, heir to the theocracy, and legitimate holder of the Davidic throne of Israel. As Barclay said, "This parable is unique among the parables of Jesus, because it is the only parable whose story is based on an actual historical event."[29] Many of Jesus' hearers could no doubt remember the occasion, following the death of Herod the Great, when his son Archelaus made the long journey to Rome to have his rule over Judea confirmed by Augustus Caesar. While Archelaus was on that journey, Josephus relates that the Jews "greatly complained of Archelaus, and desired that they might be made subject to Roman governors; but when Caesar had heard what they had to say, he distributed Herod's dominions among his sons, according to his own pleasure."[30]

Of course, there is a clear reference, in this mention of a nobleman going into a far country to receive a kingdom, to the historical fact of Archelaus having done so, and with the additional fact of the Jews' having sent messages to Caesar against him. The point, left out of sight in the parable, is also true that their ambassage did no good; Archelaus reigned anyway! So would Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the very place where Jesus spoke this parable was at Jericho, "where this very Archelaus had built himself a royal palace of great magnificence."[31]

"Notice that the story is not about a nobleman who set up a kingdom, but who went into the far country to receive one."[32] Jesus did not set up the kingdom while on earth; the kingdom began on Pentecost, after he received it in heaven. "The crowning of Jesus is still to come,"[33] at the time Jesus spoke this. This occurred in heaven (Matthew 28:18-20; 19:28; 1 Corinthians 15:25, etc.).

Citizens hated him and sent an ambassage ... This received a most illuminating comment by Trench:

Before yet he had gone to receive his kingdom, the Jews cried to Pilate, "We have no king but Caesar," and again, "Write not King of the Jews" (John 19:21). But the strictest fulfillment was in the demeanor of the Jews after his Ascension in their antagonism to Christ in his infant church.[34]

Ten servants ... The number "ten" stands for an infinitely greater number, such use of numbers being common among the Hebrews. "His citizens ..." mentioned in the next verse (Luke 19:14) were also his, and under obligations to acknowledge this rule; but the servants were especially "his" in the sense of being redeemed by him. The citizens were his because he had created them and was their rightful lord.

Ten pounds ... Each servant received the same trust, the pound standing for life with all of its emoluments. Literally, "the pound" was "a mina, worth 100 drachmas ($20.00)."[35]

The three servants who reported are typical of all, and as Trench declared, "The three are adduced as specimens of classes,"[36] the other seven being passed over for the sake of brevity.

We will not that this man reign over us ... (Luke 19:14) Of this, Cox remarked, "Servants, what are you doing with the pound entrusted in your keeping? Citizens, we beg you to let this man reign over you, that you may reign with him."[37]

The portion of this parable dealing with the pounds is significantly different from Matthew's account of the Talents. As Boles said, "They are different in every essential and important point."[38] In Matthew, a much larger sum was entrusted, a talent being vastly greater than a mere pound; but there the apostles were in view, and their trust was greater than that of other Christians. There each received, not the same, as here, but according to his ability, etc.

Of the unfavorable opinion of his lord, held by the man who hid his pound, it should be observed that the irreligious always have an antagonistic view of God. The king's answering him out of his own mouth shows that men will not be able to complain if God condemns them.

To every one that hath shall be given, etc. ... This was a saying of Jesus, intrinsically true, and used on several occasions. Only those who employ their God-given abilities shall keep them and find them expanded.

Bring hither, and slay before me ... "This pictures the terrible fate of Jerusalem, indicating the inexorable judgments of God in history";[39] but it prefigures also the Second Coming and final judgment scene. The fact that the unfaithful servant was merely deprived, contrasting with the capital punishment executed here, has led some to suppose that:

A distinction is drawn between the reproof of a servant and the execution of an enemy. The judgment of believers for reward and that of the opposing world for condemnation seem to be distinguished here.[40]

Such a speculation would seem to be unjustified on the grounds that in Matthew, the Lord said, "Cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 25:30).

This bringing of his enemies and slaying them must not be understood as merely inert matter in the parable. As Trench said, "It belongs to the innermost kernel of the parable,"[41] showing the unmitigated wrath of Almighty God as it shall finally be vindicated upon the wicked.

In this great parable, it is of the greatest significance that Jesus is the nobleman who went to receive a kingdom. Therefore, Jesus is Lord and King, and such this parable was designed to declare him, no less than it was designed to show that no immediate political victory for the Jews would mark God's kingdom. The arrogant assertion of many to the effect that Jesus fully expected a glorious kingdom at that point in history is refuted by the implications of this parable, which envisages a time-lapse of centuries. The very fact of Jesus' prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem, as he undeniably did, an event forty years future from his crucifixion, and making that to be a type of the final judgment, as the overwhelming number of Bible scholars agree, shows that the holy Saviour fully knew, and revealed it beforehand, that centuries were involved in the progress of his kingdom to the final judgment.

[28] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 226.

[29] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 246.

[30] Flavius Josephus, Wars, Book II, chapter 6.

[31] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 303.

[32] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 583.

[33] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 173.

[34] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 509.

[35] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 583.

[36] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 511.

[37] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1941), p. 60.

[38] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 362.

[39] Donald G. Miller, op. cit., p. 134.

[40] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 256.

[41] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 512.